IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i3p254-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Decision Making: From Decision Science to Data Science

Author

Listed:
  • Azza Shaoibi

    (Epidemiology Analytics, Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA)

  • Brian Neelon

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA)

  • Leslie A. Lenert

    (Epidemiology Analytics, Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA
    Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA)

Abstract

Background. Accurate diagnosis of patients’ preferences is central to shared decision making. Missing from clinical practice is an approach that links pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes. Objective . We propose a Bayesian collaborative filtering (CF) algorithm that combines pretreatment preferences and patient-reported outcomes to provide treatment recommendations. Design. We present the methodological details of a Bayesian CF algorithm designed to accomplish 3 tasks: 1) eliciting patient preferences using conjoint analysis surveys, 2) clustering patients into preference phenotypes, and 3) making treatment recommendations based on the posttreatment satisfaction of like-minded patients. We conduct a series of simulation studies to test the algorithm and to compare it to a 2-stage approach. Results. The Bayesian CF algorithm and 2-stage approaches performed similarly when there was extensive overlap between preference phenotypes. When the treatment was moderately associated with satisfaction, both methods made accurate recommendations. The kappa estimates measuring agreement between the true and predicted recommendations were 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.052–0.88) and 0.73 (0.56–0.90) under the Bayesian CF and 2-stage approaches, respectively. The 2-stage approach failed to converge in settings in which clusters were well separated, whereas the Bayesian CF algorithm produced acceptable results, with kappas of 0.73 (0.56–0.90) and 0.83 (0.69–0.97) for scenarios with moderate and large treatment effects, respectively. Limitations. Our approach assumes that the patient population is composed of distinct preference phenotypes, there is association between treatment and outcomes, and treatment effects vary across phenotypes. Findings are also limited to simulated data. Conclusion . The Bayesian CF algorithm is feasible, provides accurate cluster treatment recommendations, and outperforms 2-stage estimation when clusters are well separated. As such, the approach serves as a roadmap for incorporating predictive analytics into shared decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Azza Shaoibi & Brian Neelon & Leslie A. Lenert, 2020. "Shared Decision Making: From Decision Science to Data Science," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 254-265, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:254-265
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20903267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20903267
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20903267?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dun-Hao Chang & Yu-Hsiang Wang & Chi-Ying Hsieh & Che-Wei Chang & Ke-Chung Chang & Yo-Shen Chen, 2021. "Incorporating Patient Preferences into a Decision-Making Model of Hand Trauma Reconstruction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-13, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:254-265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.